The June 23 meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals was moved to the Rochester Council on Aging meeting room due to space considerations. That proved to be a good move when the room was packed to standing room only in advance of a hotly contentious hearing: Wellspring Farms.

The board’s agenda featured an appeal of the building inspector’s recent decision that the business being operated by James and Holly Vogel at 42 Hiller Road was not permitted. A second hearing listed as an application seeking a special permit to allow commercial use of the property was also on the agenda.

Represented by attorney George Boerger, the Vogels listened while Boerger spoke for over 30-minutes on reasons why their operation was in harmony the town’s bylaws and was, in fact, a “right of use” case.

Boerger described the services provided at Wellspring Farm as “educational and agricultural.” He said that a 2001 board of appeals decision determined that activities at the property were a right as an education use and that the right of use for agricultural activities had not been brought up at that time.

Boerger then talked about the educational and therapeutic services at the farm, saying that the Vogels themselves no longer provide direct services but use a group of licensed sub-contractors. They also have one full-time employee.

Boerger insisted that the 2001 decision by the then-sitting members of the ZBA was correct when it decided to allow the operation. He went on to add that since that time, the operation had changed in several ways.

He said operational hours and days, as well as the number of clients served, had decreased, and he called the provided service “a unique form of education” that used the natural environment and the animals to help facilitate the growth and well being of the clients. He said that use of the animals was part and parcel to the process and, as such, constituted agricultural use of the property. The Vogels keep horses, donkeys, goats, alpacas, and one micro-mini pig.

Boerger also referenced eight letters in support of the Vogels from clients’ families and from several school districts including Middleboro and New Bedford.

When asked about accreditation of the operation by ZBA member Thomas Flynn, Vogel responded that he is audited three times a year by the Massachusetts Health and Human Services agency.

But the question on the minds of many in attendance, primarily those abutters in opposition to the farm’s operation, was: “Is this educational or mental health services?”

Attorney John Markey, representing as many as seven abutters, went directly to that big question saying, “…it’s a commercial business, an outpatient mental health group practice, is this appropriate for the neighborhood…” He recognized the importance of services such as those supplied by the Vogels’ operation but wondered about the rights of the neighbors to enjoy their property. The neighbors’ complaints were the increase in traffic on a rural country road that put them and their children in danger.

But there were other concerns, those not primarily based on questions of zoning rights.

Kathy Mendoza, 32 Hiller Road said, “It’s very noisy. We don’t use our pool because people are parked in cars staring into our yard. It invades my privacy.” She said, “We’ve stapled tarps to trees in the backyard to get some privacy.” She began to express concerns about animal waste and associated smells, but ZBA chairman Richard Cutler said, “That’s the Board of Health.”

Sarah Miller, 23 Hiller Road said, “Traffic is a problem; it’s impacted our lives in the short time we’ve been here.”

Paula Alexander, 14 Hiller Road, said, “All of us applaud the good work at Wellspring, but it is a business; there is an undue burden with traffic.”

Another abutter Ed Amaral said, “…traffic is mind boggling: buses, cabs, private cars, people looking into our yard…”

Mike Donovan, 31 Hiller Road, said, “I’ve lived there for twenty-seven years, but the past four or five years traffic has grown: buses, vans, cars continually in that area, noise levels. It’s not the same.” He also said that the Vogels’ property was on the market with a multi-million-dollar price tag being described as an outpatient center and commercial business.

Others in attendance were supporters of the Vogels.

Mary Delmonico of Pembroke said, “There’s no place like this. Without Wellspring, my kids are lost.”

Rene Rivet, 213 Walnut Plain Road, said “It’s very quiet as far as I’m concerned.”

Jennifer Govoni of Wareham shared, “My daughter is blind. She learns by feeling the horse’s mane; you can’t provide education like that in a traditional school.”

Mike Martin said, “I’ve lived on Hiller Road for forty-eight years. Of course, you’re going to have more traffic,” citing the growth overall in Rochester.

Vogel spoke to the abutters in opposition saying, “Your idea of education is narrow. This is experiential learning … it saves the town money … the schools come to me. It’s hard for people to understand.”

Bill Guilmette, Fall River, said that he had four children receiving services at Wellspring, “People are selfish; they say ‘not in my backyard….’”

A chorus went up from the back of the room as Guilmette’s comment touched a nerve in other supporters of the Vogels.

Cutler stood up and loudly proclaimed, “If I have any more of this, I’ll clear the room!”

The ZBA members decided they had received enough information from the public and closed down the public comment portion of the hearing. Boeger was allowed to rebut opposition statements. He said, “This is education in a different way.”

Cutler said the ZBA had a lot of information to process and wanted to give each member sufficient time to privately review it all. The hearing on the Vogels’ appeal was continued until July 14. Their application for a special permit was not heard.

Cutler said if the board votes to overturn the building inspector’s decision, then the special permit hearing would not be necessary. If they voted to accept that decision, then the special permit hearing could move forward. He also said he may or may not reopen the appeal to public comment on July 14.

Outside the public meeting in a follow-up conversation, Vogel said, “People came to speak and they weren’t allowed. The board did not allow full disclosure.”

Other hearing before the ZBA were three variances all of which were granted: Karen Mealey, 379 County Road, for the construction of an above ground pool; Leah McCloud, 59 Marion Road, for the construction of an addition to an existing home; and William Watling, 360 Cushman Road, for the construction of a free-standing garage.

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for July 14 at 7:00 pm in the Rochester Council on Aging meeting room.

By Marilou Newell

The June 22 meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission was moving along smoothly until a discussion with Jay Myrto of Clean Energy Collective got off to a rocky start.

Chairman Norman Hills inquired why Myrto hadn’t considered an alternate screening plan for the Tucker Lane solar array versus the one the Planning Board had put in place during a June meeting. At that Planning Board meeting, Myrto was told that the neighbors wanted additional screening, felt the array and land clearing was decreasing their property values, and demanded action from the Planning Board.

The issue for Hills and the Conservation Commission: the new plan was in jurisdictional wetlands. Hills questioned Myrto as to why he hadn’t considered an alternative to the Planning Board’s plan of putting additional screening plants in the bordering vegetated wetlands. Myrto said that was possible but really felt he needed to follow the Planning Board’s directive.

That frustrated Hills, causing him raise his voice and ask, “Why can’t you just do what we asked you?” He said that the Conservation Commission was responsible for the wetlands in question, not the Planning Board or the abutters.

Compounding the issue, during construction of the solar field, a sub-contractor of CEC had removed native plants and shrubs in an area that was not to be altered and left behind what was described as a “scar.”

Myrto now found himself in the middle between two of the town’s governing bodies that had very little collaboration or cooperation, as noted by commissioner Cindy Callow.

Callow said, “I went to the Planning Board meeting. They said they would help you; you see how many are here now.” Myrto was alone. She continued, “They have never come to us in a cooperative manner. Perhaps things could be handled better. I understand they are voted in and we are appointed. It’s a tempest in a teapot.” Then hitting a more conciliatory note she said, “The plan that has been approved by the Planning Board is okay with me. For the town, we need to work better together in the future.” Hills added, “We said we’d be glad to talk to them.”

“We approved a plan; it was done,” Callow said referring to the first order of conditions the commission had imposed on the project that was subsequently breached by sub-contractor. “In the future, we need to talk as two boards. We reached out to them; they didn’t come back, but to expedite things and make things happy we should approve this plan.”

Commissioner Joel Hartley said, “I’m not as worried about it as Norm is. I’m okay with the new plan.”

In the end, the commissioners voted to amend an enforcement order put in place when the unpermitted clearing was deemed a violation of the order of conditions. The amended enforcement order will allow the additional plantings in the jurisdictional border. Hills abstained from the vote.

Warren Williamson, 121 Converse Road, represented by James Manganello of LEC Environmental, requested an extension permit. Manganello discussed with the commissioners violations to orders of conditions saying, “The property owner is regretful and sorry it happened and wants to be a good steward of the land.”

Hills said, “There is a disconnect between what we thought we were approving and what we found.” Manganello said that Williamson presently lives out of state and was unaware of local policies regarding landscape alterations. Manganello said that of the wetlands area impacted, “…there’s a lot of diversity out there … just about everything is growing back … the root systems were not removed.”

Callow referred to the alterations as “extensive” with both Hills and Hartley agreeing. Hills said the commission needed to “get smart” in the event they are faced with such a large violation in the future while rhetorically adding, “The question is how do we go from here to there.” A one-year extension was approved with a caution to the applicant, a request to replace delineation flagging, and the development of a wetlands vegetation plan.

The commissioners also discussed what action they should take on violations at 13 East Avenue owned by L. Reinhart. Seawall construction had been deemed unlicensed by the commission. The commissioners concurred that a license needed to be secured from the Massachusetts Department of Environment Chapter 91 as well as a notice of intent which had never been filed. Hartley said that an enforcement order and notification to the DEP was in order. Callow said, “We told them once and they didn’t do anything. We need to up the ante a little bit.” The commissioners agreed to send enforcement letters.

Doug Thackeray’s NOI was continued until July 27 pending notification from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries for inspection of Thackeray’s aquaculture project off Stewart’s Island in Sippican Harbor.

The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for July 13 at 7:00 pm in the town house conference room.

By Marilou Newell